Supreme Court Opinions

IMPORTANT NOTICE

Beginning no later than July 1, 2011, the appellate courts will send notices, orders, opinions and correspondence related to pending cases to attorneys in those cases by e-mail rather than postal mail. All attorneys with pending appellate cases who have not already registered an e-mail address should do so immediately. Unrepresented parties with pending appellate cases may also participate in this e-notification system by registering an e-mail address. Please go to the Clerk of Appellate Courts page for instructions how to register your e-mail address.

PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED OPINIONS

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT

FILED Wednesday, February 14, 2018

NOTICE - MEDIA RELEASE TIME IS 10:00 A.M.

A16-0768 Russell Eldon Briles, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, vs. 2013 GMC Terrain, MN License Number 168 KSE, VIN: 2GKFLZE3XD6336507,
Appellant/Cross-Respondent.
Court of Appeals.
1. A complaint for judicial determination of a forfeiture under Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 8 (2016) is time-barred if it is filed more than 60 days after receipt of the notice the statute requires.
2. Because insurance proceeds payable as a result of damage to a forfeited vehicle are not a part of all “right, title, and interest” in the vehicle under Minn. Stat. § 169A.63 (2016), that statute does not authorize the forfeiture of insurance proceeds.Affirmed. Chief Justice Lorie S. Gildea.

A17-0403 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Christopher Michael Prigge, Respondent.
Court of Appeals.
1. A person under the influence of alcohol who is driving a vehicle with a pistol within arm’s reach is carrying a pistol “about the person’s clothing or person” within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 624.7142 (2016).
2. Whether a person under the influence of alcohol who is driving a vehicle is carrying a pistol “about the person’s clothing or person” is a question of fact. Reversed and remanded. Justice David L. Lillehaug.

A17-0962 Court Park Company, et al, Respondents, vs. County of Hennepin, Relator.
Tax Court.
1. When determining whether a petitioning taxpayer has produced evidence sufficient to overcome the statutory presumption that a property tax assessment is valid, the tax court may consider only the evidence presented by the taxpayer.
2. The tax court did not abuse its discretion in denying the County’s motion to dismiss by holding, in the alternative, that the evidence presented by the taxpayer overcame the statutory presumption. Affirmed. Justice David L. Lillehaug.

A16-0575 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Tchad Tu Henderson, Appellant.
Court of Appeals.
The term “operating” in Minn. Stat. § 609.2113, subd. 1 (2016), refers to any act that causes a motor vehicle to function or controls the functioning of a motor vehicle, including the act of a passenger grabbing the steering wheel of a moving vehicle. Affirmed. Justice Natalie E. Hudson.